1 / 24

Lexical Quality of ESL Learners: Effects of Focused Training on Encoding

Lexical Quality of ESL Learners: Effects of Focused Training on Encoding. Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, & Charles A. Perfetti University of Pittsburgh Jeanine Sun Washington University in St. Louis. Background. ESL encoding task (of RSAs)

noel-richmond
Télécharger la présentation

Lexical Quality of ESL Learners: Effects of Focused Training on Encoding

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lexical Quality of ESL Learners:Effects of Focused Training on Encoding Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, & Charles A. Perfetti University of Pittsburgh Jeanine Sun Washington University in St. Louis

  2. Background • ESL encoding task (of RSAs) • Arab L1 seem to make more spelling errors than Korean, Chinese, and Spanish L1 • Differences cannot necessarily be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, L2 vocabulary knowledge, or L2 fluency

  3. Previous Research • Arab L1 have more problems with prelexical word identification; Japanese L1 have more problems with online word integration (Fender, 2003)

  4. Previous Research • Reading skill better than L1 as a predictor of L2 spelling accuracy in school-aged children (Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997)

  5. Theoretical Framework • Lexical Quality Hypothesis • (Perfetti & Hart, 2001) in L1 • orthography, phonology, meaning • plus don’t forget: syntax and morphology • L1 affects L2 learning of grammar, spelling, vocabulary, etc. • (MacWhinney, 2005)

  6. Connection to PSLC Framework • Robust Learning • Retention (of trained words) • Transfer (to new words) • Accelerated future learning (faster decrease in error rates across ESL years) • Assistance dilemma • Explicit vs. implicit instruction

  7. Hypotheses/Predictions • Intervention with focused encoding and meaning-based encoding task will increase quality of lexical representations • Retention • improved lexical quality (of trained words) • Transfer • improved lexical quality (of new/untrained words) • Accelerated future learning • faster decrease in error rates (steeper slope)

  8. Method • Two-phase approach • Phase 1: Knowledge Component Analysis • Phase 2: Focused Intervention

  9. Method • Phase 1 – Knowledge Component Analysis • in-depth coding of RSA transcription data • aka data mining

  10. Coding • Correct • AWL K1-5 (e.g., accumulation, techniques) • acceptable (e.g., blog, otolaryngology, falafel) • Typing (form) • capitalization (e.g., english) • punctuation (e.g., couldnt) • spacing (e.g., myfriend) • Errors • encoding errors

  11. Error Types • Consonant • Missing conect (spa4) • Extra fittness (kor3) • Substitution afternoom (kor4) • Vowel • Missing tuch (chi4) • Extra aabout (ara4) • Substitution becose (kor3) • Multiple C/V errors voleyboll (spa3) • Transpositions afetr (ara3), becuase (kor5) • Lexical/morphological • Plural, tense, affixes truthable (kor4); laught (tai3) • Garble cabegle (chi4); thr (ara4)

  12. Preliminary Findings

  13. Preliminary Findings

  14. Preliminary Findings

  15. Summary of Preliminary Findings • For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5 • Arab L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups, this difference persists through Level 5 • Arab L1 seem to be attempting more “advanced” words (fewer AWL1 words) • Vowel errors most prevalent for Arab L1 • Consonant errors most prevalent for Spanish L1

  16. Method • Phase 2 – Intervention • Fall 2008 • In vivo ESL LearnLab • Designed to focus attention to form-meaning mappings

  17. Implementation • Participants • Pilot in Fall 2008 (Level 5 students) • Data collection in Spring 2009, weeks 1-15 • ESL 3, 4, and 5 writing classes • Exercises • Required but not graded • Done in language lab (CL G-17) • Overseen by researcher on site for weekly scheduled lab times • Programmed in Revolution (or Flash?) • Separate from REAP-based vocabulary study

  18. Predicted Results • L1 x Level x Focus (whole word/sublexical) • Retention • improved lexical quality (of trained words) • Transfer • improved lexical quality (of new/untrained words) • Accelerated future learning • faster decrease in error rates (steeper slope)

  19. Acknowledgments • Sally J. Andrews, Michael Nugent, Claire Bradin Siskin • PSLC ESL LearnLab, funded by NSF award number SBE-0354420

More Related